Solution Architects Working Group (SAWG)

1,106 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Solution Architects Working Group (SAWG)

  1. 1. SAWG Solution Architects Working Group Overview of Mission and Objectives XML Working Group Meeting June 19, 2002 Federal Enterprise Architecture - Program Management Office (FEA-PMO)
  2. 2. Presentation Areas: <ul><li>Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office (FEA-PMO) </li></ul><ul><li>Solutions Architect Working Group (SAWG) Charter </li></ul><ul><li>Component-Based Architectures (CBA) </li></ul>
  3. 3. Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office (FEA-PMO) <ul><li>Background </li></ul><ul><li>Accomplishments </li></ul><ul><li>Next Steps </li></ul>Discussion Topics:
  4. 4. Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office (FEA-PMO): Background <ul><li>Establish a Federal Enterprise Architecture to facilitate the transformation to E-Gov </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Enterprise Architecture Models (BRM, ARM, TRM) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal Enterprise Architecture Management System (FEAMS) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Support the implementation of the 24 Presidential Priority E-Gov Initiatives through the definition of a: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Solution Architect Working Group (SAWG) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Component-Based Architecture (CBA) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Identify Additional E-Gov Opportunities </li></ul>
  5. 5. Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office (FEA-PMO): Accomplishments <ul><li>Creation of the Federal Business Reference Model (BRM) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Define and Validate Federal Business Areas, Lines of Business, and Sub-Functions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides a framework for identifying opportunities for cross-agency collaboration and potential system redundancies </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Establishment of the SAWG </li></ul><ul><li>Identification and release of the Component-Based Architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Providing on-going support to the 24 Presidential Priority E-Gov Initiatives </li></ul>
  6. 6. Federal Enterprise Architecture Program Management Office (FEA-PMO): Next Steps <ul><li>Development of Additional Reference Models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Business Performance </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Application/Capabilities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology and Standards </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Solution Architect Working Group </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Continue engaging with E-Gov Initiatives </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide Leadership, Guidance, and Recommendations supporting: </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>System Architecture Planning and Implementation </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Component-Based Architectures </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The usage of XML, Web Services, UDDI, SOAP, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Creation of best practice “check-lists” to support system implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Establish linkages to Federal CIO Council entities to help evolve guidance and recommendations (ongoing) </li></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Solution Architect Working Group (SAWG) Charter <ul><li>Leadership Team </li></ul><ul><li>Missions and Goals </li></ul><ul><li>Key Objectives </li></ul>Discussion Topics:
  8. 8. Leadership Team Bob Haycock Senior Solution Architect Roopangi Kadakia (FirstGov) Stuart Rabinowitz (GSA) Tice DeYoung (GSA) PRESENTATION Forms, Scripting DHTML, XSL, XML JSP, ASP HTML, JavaScript FirstGov Integration PLATFORMS & DB J2EE, .NET SQL, Databases Services Architecture BUSINESS LOGIC EJB, COM, COM+ UML, Use Cases SECURITY SSL, e-Authentication Encryption Security <ul><li>Delivery Oversight </li></ul><ul><li>Communication/Outreach </li></ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul><ul><li>Program Management </li></ul>OMB Portfolio Managers Managing Partners Industry Working Groups (i.e., NASCIO, w3.org), others Supporting Partners State and Local Norman Lorentz <ul><li>Executive Management </li></ul><ul><li>Directional Oversight </li></ul>Roopangi Kadakia (FirstGov) Solution Architects Expanded structure based on demand of skills Marion Royal (GSA) MESSAGING SOAP Web Services XML ebXML Governmentwide Groups Industry
  9. 9. The SAWG was created to help the 24 Presidential Priority E-Gov initiatives succeed <ul><li>Insight into (and across) E-Gov Initiatives </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Avoid duplication of efforts </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Leverage, share, and reuse technologies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Capture (and apply) lessons learned and best practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Linkages to Federal Councils and Working Groups </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Guidance and Leadership </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Selection and Recommendations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Solution Architecture and Blueprint Definition </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Experience and Knowledge </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Intellectual Capital </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Transition Planning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Legacy Migration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Component-Based Architectures </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Thinking “outside” the box </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. The SAWG has established several objectives and goals to help agencies and E-Gov Initiatives… <ul><li>Monitoring, Support, and Guidance </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Onsite visits </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Architecture review </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>V&V, JAD, RAD Sessions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Generation and Distribution of Intellectual Capital (IC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>White Papers, Case Studies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Lessons Learned and Best Practices </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Recommendations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Questionnaires and Surveys </li></ul></ul>
  11. 11. The SAWG has established several objectives and goals to help agencies and E-Gov Initiatives, Cont’d… <ul><li>Architecture Assessment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>What should be leveraged, what shouldn’t </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Existing vs. Targeted Solutions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Implementation Plans </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Forecast Problems, Risk Mitigation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Identify and Leverage Linkages </li></ul><ul><ul><li>E-Authentication </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>FirstGov </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal Enterprise Architecture (FEA) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Governmentwide Entities </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>XML Working Group, CIO Council, etc. </li></ul></ul></ul>
  12. 12. The SAWG has established several objectives and goals to help agencies and E-Gov Initiatives, Cont’d… <ul><li>Component-Based Architecture Specifications </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Detailed Design, Examples </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Tools and Techniques </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Use Cases </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Activity and Sequence Diagrams </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Workflow, ERD </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Component and Services Directory </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Access to components (Industry, State, Local, Federal) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>XML.GOV </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Categorized by </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Business Line, Functions and Capability </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Technology Required, Usage Parameters </li></ul></ul></ul>
  13. 13. The SAWG has established several objectives and goals to help agencies and E-Gov Initiatives, Cont’d <ul><li>Training Syllabus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Supporting Component-Based Development </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Design and Development </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Architecture </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Program Management </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Communication and Outreach </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Website </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Collaborative Tools </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Linkages to Governmentwide Entities </li></ul></ul>
  14. 14. Component-Based Architectures <ul><li>Attributes of a Component-Based Architecture </li></ul><ul><li>Technology Selection Criterion </li></ul><ul><li>Logical Architectures </li></ul><ul><li>Developing Solutions </li></ul>Discussion Topics:
  15. 15. FEA-PMO has defined a Component-Based Architecture to support the 24 Presidential Priority E-Gov Initiatives <ul><li>Select, recommend, and deploy sets of technology that are: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reusable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Interoperable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Portable and Secure </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Leverage emerging technologies and industry-proven standards: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Microsoft .NET </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>XML, XML Web Services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Commercial “off-the-shelf” tools and applications </li></ul></ul>
  16. 16. Component-Based Architectures will allow the 24 Presidential Priority E-Gov Initiatives to <ul><li>Identify and quickly capitalize on opportunities to: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Leverage, share, and reuse technology </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Leverage cross-agency business functions </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Streamline and improve information access </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reduce costs and risks associated with: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Legacy integration </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Technology selection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Maintenance and support </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Program management </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Improve: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality and consistency of services </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Customer support (citizen and intra-governmental) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Delivery, speed to market, shared services </li></ul></ul>
  17. 17. Components provide a basis for the rapid assembly of business and cross-agency solutions Public/Citizen Services Customer FirstGov (Point of Entry, Authentication, Service Directory) - Online Rulemaking and Management - (Conceptual Design) DOT USDA EPA HHS ENERGY INTERIOR Shared/Reusable Components Agencies Policies, Local repositories Content Management Policy Repository Policy Search Engine Policy Profile Publishing Calendar Discussion Forums Policy Review Alerts and Subscriptions Feedback FAQ’s, Links Publishing Rules Common Business Processes Content Publishing Government Services Conceptual
  18. 18. Component architectures require the use and implementation of technologies that are <ul><li>Cross platform and operating system independent </li></ul><ul><li>Mature (not antiquated) and proven across the market </li></ul><ul><li>Infrastructure independent </li></ul><ul><li>Standards based (i.e., w3.org) </li></ul><ul><li>Non-proprietary and extensible </li></ul><ul><li>Easier to deploy and integrate </li></ul><ul><li>Decoupled and loosely integrated </li></ul><ul><li>Interoperable (when needed) </li></ul><ul><li>Best practice enabled </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Federal (CIO Council, NIST, GAO) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Industry (Carnegie Melon, Gartner, Commercial) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>State and Local </li></ul></ul>
  19. 19. FEA-PMO focused on the following foundations to support technology recommendations <ul><li>Platform </li></ul><ul><ul><li>The Foundation / Underlying Architecture </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The Service Provider of Components </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Data Format </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Structure of Information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Easily Understood and Expandable </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Leverages Industry Standards </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provides Common Vocabulary Capabilities (i.e., cross-agency) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Easily Integrated With Disparate Systems (i.e., legacy) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Messaging and Protocols </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Manages the Delivery of Information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Leverages Industry Standards </li></ul></ul>
  20. 20. Industry technologies provided the basis for platform selection and FEA-PMO guidance recommendations Scale  = low,  = medium,  = high         Ease of Development / Integration         Application Interoperability          Non-proprietary Extensibility 13 / 24 16 / 24 17 / 24 22 / 24 Final Analysis           Standards Based           Infrastructure Independence          Loose Integration of Heterogeneous Systems         Mature (not antiquated) Technology         Cross Platform Portability / OS Independent .NET / Email or FTP J2EE / Email or FTP .NET / Web Services J2EE / Web Services
  21. 21. Platforms have advantages and disadvantages that should be weighed against agency capabilities Microsoft .NET Java 2 Enterprise Edition (J2EE) Web Services FTP/Email CLR – Common Language Runtime C#, J#, COBOL, Visual Basic Single Platform Open Language Architecture Potentially easier to develop in (e.g., VB) Emerging Technology JVM – Java Virtual Machine Multi-platform Single language & open standards architecture Complex to develop solutions in Established and mature technology XML Based data transmission Requires little or no modification to infra. Easy implementation Emerging technology Enables loose integration of heterogeneous systems Supported by J2EE and .NET technologies Implemented for XML Based data transmission May require additional holes in infrastructure Awkward implementation Uses established and mature protocols Difficult to support integration of heterogeneous systems Supported by J2EE and .NET technologies D - Disadvantage A - Advantage R - Potential Risk D A A D R D A D A A A D A A A D A A
  22. 22. Logical Architecture: J2EE, Web Services <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><li>Adaptability, dependable, flexible, secure </li></ul><ul><li>Maximum use of industry standards </li></ul><ul><li>Minimal firewall issues </li></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><li>Complex to develop components/solutions </li></ul>
  23. 23. Logical Architecture: J2EE, XML over FTP <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><li>Adaptable, dependable, flexible, secure </li></ul><ul><li>Maximum use of industry standards </li></ul><ul><li>FTP widely supported in legacy systems </li></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><li>Complex to develop solutions/components </li></ul><ul><li>Firewall issues very likely due to FTP </li></ul>
  24. 24. Logical Architecture: Microsoft .NET, Web Services <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><li>Supports multiple programming languages </li></ul><ul><li>Easy to develop in </li></ul><ul><li>Minimal firewall issues </li></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><li>Early adopter of standards </li></ul><ul><li>Single platform only </li></ul>
  25. 25. Logical Architecture: Microsoft .NET, XML over FTP <ul><li>Advantages </li></ul><ul><li>Supports multiple programming languages </li></ul><ul><li>Easy to develop in </li></ul><ul><li>Disadvantages </li></ul><ul><li>Early adopter of standards </li></ul><ul><li>Single platform only </li></ul><ul><li>Firewall issues very likely due to FTP </li></ul>
  26. 26. BUSINESS LOGIC TRANSACTION MANAGEMENT PRESENTATION / INTERFACE INFORMATION STORAGE CUSTOMER INTERFACING SYSTEM SECURITY Security provides an overarching framework that includes a series of defensive mechanisms and functions designed to protect the system, data and information from unintentional or malicious threats. INFORMATION STORAGE Information stored in persistent relational, object-based, and/or file based repositories is abstracted to hide the complexity of the storage system from the interfacing applications. PRESENTATION / INTERFACE Abstracts the complexity of the application from the user or interfacing applications. BUSINESS LOGIC Business functionality is modular and component based, enabling greater maintainability and interoperability. TRANSACTION MGMT . Ensures/optimizes access, quality, consistency, and integrity of operational data. To support reuse of components, solutions should be built using a tiered development approach SECURITY - Solution Design and Development - (Conceptual Framework)
  27. 27. Next Steps… <ul><li>Establish linkages between governmentwide entities (i.e., Federal CIO Council, XML Working Group) </li></ul><ul><li>Expand the capabilities of the SAWG by enlisting more Solution Architects </li></ul><ul><li>Assignment of a Solution Architect to each the 24 Presidential Priority E-Gov Initiatives </li></ul><ul><li>Development and dissemination of Intellectual Capital (IC) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Checklists and strategies </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>White Papers and lessons learned </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Help initiative understand, embrace, and deploy Component-Based Architectures </li></ul><ul><li>Launch of FEA-PMO and SAWG websites </li></ul><ul><li>Definition and validation of a Federally focused Application Capability Reference Model (ARM) and Technology Reference Model (TRM) </li></ul>As you can imagine, we are drinking from a fire hose!!!
  28. 28. Questions and Answers…

×